Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Matt_dk writes "The US firm Space Adventures said on Friday it will be able to send two space tourists into orbit at once from 2012 onwards, on Soyuz spacecraft. 'We have been working on this project for a number of years,' said Sergey Kostenko, the head of the company's office in Russia. Each Soyuz will carry two tourists and a professional astronaut. One of the tourists will have to pass a year-and-a-half training course as a flight engineer. Space Adventures has been authorized by the Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos to select and contract candidates for space tourist trips." Meanwhile, the AP has a look back at the delays and disappointments in the commercial spaceflight industry since Burt Rutan captured the Ansari X Prize 5 years ago — no space company has yet announced a date for commercial availability.

Yeah, it's too bad that the USA has fallen so far behind, now with Russian rovers exploring Mars, Chinese spacecraft making the first detailed inspection of Mercury, the Brazilians having sending a probe to Pluto.../sarcasm

That made me think... anybody remember when the USA used to actually pioneer anything, back when it used to innovate and do new things? Unless you're a member of the geriatric crowd you probably don't remember this at all.

You got modded up for this? What do you define as a 'geriatric'? Ten years ago nobody had heard of Google. 15 years ago nobody had heard of Viagra. 20 years ago the internet was an novelty item that was little used outside of academia and the US Government. 25 years ago nobody outside of the military had any use for GPS. 30 years ago the personal computer was a novelty item that was priced out of reach for most households.

Yes, I can see why you would bemoan the fact that the US no longer innovates or

What do you define as a 'geriatric'? Ten years ago nobody had heard of Google. 15 years ago nobody had heard of Viagra. 20 years ago the internet was an novelty item that was little used outside of academia and the US Government.

So now us old folks can use Google on the Internet to go buy Viagra. The future is here and we're loving it! Go USA!

Space Adventures is a U.S. company; they're just using the Russian space program to send clients into space. Nothing is really being pioneered here, not even by the Russians. They haven't designed a new launch vehicle. They haven't made space travel more affordable. They haven't made it significantly safer, either.

That said, the Russian space program has had a better safety record. Also, they're probably a little less risk adverse, and a little more desperate for cash. So that's why it's the Russians who are sending billionaires into space.

I think it's a good thing that NASA has the federal funding to focus on science rather than having to rent themselves out as a space taxi for the rich for funding. If private companies want to invest in space tourism, that's their prerogative. That's not what NASA was created for. If anything, they should stick to developing cutting-edge technology (which eventually gets passed down to the civilian sector after they've matured and decreased in cost) and leave the commercialization of space to the private sector.

This is akin to renting out our cutting edge nuclear subs to the rich and famous to use as a weekend pleasure vessel. Yea, it's "pioneering" in the sense that it hasn't been done before, but it's not exactly an enviable achievement. Now, if Space Adventures had designed a spacecraft of their own specifically tailored to commercial space travel, making it economically viable and safe enough for civilian use (i.e. not having to spend a year training for a 10-day trip), then that would be a huge pioneering achievement.

However, I just don't see that happening within the next decade unless some significant advances in space technology are made. It simply costs to much to put something into space. Short of the space elevator or some other revolutionary launch vehicle being developed, "space tourism" will remain a novelty for the super rich.

yep, you've definitely been listening to the western propaganda. Let me just fix a few of these up here:

1. It's Energia who is providing the flights, you know, a private corporation that sells flights on their rockets to anyone who will pay?2. They are "desperate for cash" in the exact same way any company with a product they want to sell is.3. N

I think you're confused. S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia is the manufacturer of most of the spacecraft and components used by Roscosmos [wikipedia.org]. But it's the Russian Space Agency that's providing the transportation into space. It's also through the RKA that Space Adventures is able to book civilian flights to (the Russian part of) the ISS.

I don't know what you're getting at with the rest of your post. It may help if you reply a comment in its entirety rather than randomly singling out words and ph

I think it's a good thing that NASA has the federal funding to focus on science rather than having to rent themselves out as a space taxi for the rich for funding. If private companies want to invest in space tourism, that's their prerogative. That's not what NASA was created for. If anything, they should stick to developing cutting-edge technology (which eventually gets passed down to the civilian sector after they've matured and decreased in cost) and leave the commercialization of space to the private se

And that's how you do it folks. Take a product that people are already climbing over themselves to pay deposits on, and then hype it some more, and back up that hype with an unrealistic schedule. When you go one year over that schedule, people might forgive you. When you go two years over people start wondering what the hell is taking so long. When you go three years over.. well, hello Duke Nukem Forever, can I have my deposit back please?

Uhhh... Virgin Galactic announced their service before they had even really started development on their spaceship. I think people understood pretty well there would be a delay as they develop, build and test a new spacecraft. And considering the virgin galactic trip costs 1% the price of a soyuz trip I would say they're in pretty different markets.

"People" understood nothing. There's still people *today* talking about Virgin Galactic like they're going to be doing orbital flight. In any case, the whole "Bigger Faster Better" aspect of SpaceShipTwo was a long time coming.. most people who put down their money thought they were going to get a flight on a vehicle identical to SpaceShipOne. Of course, since then the buzz has started to die off and crazy Will Whitehorn has been talking up the alternate uses for White Knight 2 should SpaceShipTwo never fly - which is great if you're trying to attract investors, but terrible if you want to stem the tide of people asking for their deposits back.

5 years ago people were willing to pay $200k for a ride on SpaceShipOne.. there was a line of them out the door. They refused. Today, people have had 5 years to think about it and they're asking "Gee, what do I get for my $200k?" and now they're not really interested anymore. That's how you kill a market.. gobble up all the capital so you can make the only product, hype the hell out of the product, then not be ready when people come banging on your door. VG have openly said that people are no longer interested in their flights. Even if they were to fly next year (and I doubt they will fly for many years yet), there's likely to be less customers than they need to turn a profit.

Hm, I wonder why that is? Surely it didn't have anything to do with the financial meltdown. Surely it wasn't because all the CEOs with millions invested in various stocks realized that the stocks were failing? Basically, Virgin Galactic's market is CEOs or other wealthy people with cash to burn who want to experience weightlessness in space. When most of them realized they can't afford the million dollar bonus this year, Virgin Galactic's market kinda dried up.

Your point being? There was market research 5 years ago that suggested people were ready to fly. They had a vehicle 5 years ago but they chose not to fly anyone - apparently it wasn't as reusable as they said it was cause it only ever flew to space twice. So they hyped up a market and then failed to deliver the product. You can't blame some global financial boogey man for this, it's simple time-to-market failure.

I think people understood pretty well there would be a delay as they develop, build and test a new spacecraft.

Definitely. After all, what private citizen doesn't know more about Space Tourism Project Management than that Branson guy? Clearly, no one would take Branson's words at face value, expecting him to have done his homework and been honest about the results.

The spaceflight participants are trained to do the same job as the cosmonauts do. Why do you care if the trained monkey is a Russian government employee or a person who has paid for his own seat? Energia is a private corporation who provide human launch services to the Russian government (and soon the US government), if they want to sell the extra soyuz seat to the highest bidder, what concern of yours is it?

The spaceflight participants are trained to do the same job as the cosmonauts do. Why do you care if the trained monkey is a Russian government employee or a person who has paid for his own seat? Energia is a private corporation who provide human launch services to the Russian government (and soon the US government), if they want to sell the extra soyuz seat to the highest bidder, what concern of yours is it?

The trouble with mixing private enterprise and public science is that private enterprise will push f

What part of this are you not understanding? The ISS does the science right? They need humans up there to follow instructions and do the busy work because putting robotic arms up there would be just too hard (or something). Basically anyone can do it.. you don't need to be a fighter pilot or a superman, you just have to have the training. So who gets the training? The hand picked military man? Or the guy who shows up and says "I'll pay you $30 million if you teach me how to do it". Kinda a no brainer.. you send the guy who is offering to pay you rather than the guy who is demanding a pay check. Duh.

What part of this are you not understanding? The ISS does the science right? They need humans up there to follow instructions

What the fuck part are you not understanding, you condescending prat? If you bring in commercial interests they become more important and the same science doesn't get done.

The hand picked military man? Or the guy who shows up and says "I'll pay you $30 million if you teach me how to do it". Kinda a no brainer.. you send the guy who is offering to pay you rather than the guy who is dem

Dude, no-one is talking about sending a scientist up there, so you can stop your whining. Your choice is either:

* two army brats and an empty seat; or* two army brats and a paying third pair of hands.

There's no choice of:

* three ivy league trained professors

Know how many geologists the US sent to the Moon? One, and it was on the last mission. For the foreseeable future, especially since the shuttle is being retired, science in space remains a "pack it tight and make your handling instructions simple, and

If you bring in commercial interests they become more important and the same science doesn't get done.

Given that no practical, useful scientific knowledge has emerged from the ISS yet, giving it over to the commercial interests suits me just fine. Explain, exactly, why scientists should be entitled to taxpayer support for essentially nothing but to indulge their own curiosity?

Given that no practical, useful scientific knowledge has emerged from the ISS yet, giving it over to the commercial interests suits me just fine. Explain, exactly, why scientists should be entitled to taxpayer support for essentially nothing but to indulge their own curiosity?

How fucking practical do you think playing with magnets and electricity looked before there was wide spread use of either? What about pressure boilers before the steam engine. The fucking computer you're using right now is provided cou

Given the vaccine was only necessary because salmonella is an only an issue of consequence in space travel, isn't that kind of begging the question? I mean, this is an infection that kills maybe 30 people a year on earth. Considering what the cost of running the ISS is, don't you think there are more pressing medical issues to spend that kind of money on?

isn't that kind of begging the question? I mean, this is an infection that kills maybe 30 people a year on earth.
I would guess that at least 30 ppl a year die JUST in America JUST from eating EGGS that were infected with salmonella. Throw in bad chicken (kept too long in freezer; yes, salmonella grows slowly on chicken in freezer; don't believe it? Put a black light on a chiken that has in the freezer for about years; the glow is salmonella) and we probaby jump that to at least 100 or even 1000. Around th

I believe the number of people each country can send to ISS is established in the contracts between the participating countries. NASA personnel may prefer to do experiments that prepare NASA for long duration space flight, ESA might be just happy to get there, Russian space program seems to be happy to serve vodka on space station to highest bidder. I'm not saying any of these goals are wrong, but maybe Russians just believe that this tourism experiment is more important/beneficial than cultivating bean spr

I find it intensely amusing that the only commercial space flight companies that can actually put people into space for money, are the ones who outsource the actual business of launching rockets to a foreign government, using equipment designed by communists.

To me it has exposed serious weaknesses in the corporate model of organization. Space travel just doesn't seem like something they can do, at all, whilst larger governments have been doing it competently for years. Sure, there are corporate contractors for government funded space missions, but they are kept on a very tight leash. It could be that higher-level organization is not something you can get from institutions built around artificially inflated self interest.

It's not that private companies are inherently incapable of doing space travel. The fact is that space travel simply isn't profitable, and therefore, there's no reason for private companies to do it. This is also why the various prize programs to encourage space technology development are not really having that much of an impact. The companies with the most experience with this kind of thing (your Boeings, Lockheeds, etc) have already figured out the cost/benefit situation here, and have rationally decided

It's not that private companies are inherently incapable of doing space travel. The fact is that space travel simply isn't profitable, and therefore, there's no reason for private companies to do it.

That is pretty damn funny.

Basically, its "I COULD climb that tree any time I want to, I just don't want to!". Nothing other than blind faith in the 'invisible hand' or some such nonsense could convince you that private enterprise is capable of space flight.

I have $10 that says the first pair up tries to have sex. No seriously. Everyone has been curious about the physics and nature of it in zero-G I got $10 that says that a couple is going up there and a whole lot of note taking going on. I'd even pop an extra $5 one that a university or two will even chip in.